4 ms·

The majority of child abuse isn't filmed or transmitted. Therefore, if the goal is truly to reduce child abuse, the best law would be to remove front doors and

The majority of child abuse isn't filmed or transmitted. Therefore, if the goal is truly to reduce child abuse, the best law would be to remove front doors and make house walls out of glass. By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur. Don't like that idea? Why? It's not like you have anything to hide, right? You're a stand-up, law-abiding citizen. So what does it matter if people can look inside your home and listen to your private conversations? ^ This is the argument I use whenever someone says they think encryption should be ended. I think because digital data isn't physical, and therefore doesn't feel intimate, people's immediate reaction is, "Only criminals who have something to hide would want encryption!" When you add a tangible, physical element to the conversation--a conversation taking place within a house with doors and walls--suddenly people understand why even "harmless" conversations deserve privacy and respect, and why non-criminals would be pro-encryption.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
> By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur. CPS can do that if they have a warrant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bronzeage 5y ago
That's a clear strawman. There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. There are also restrictions of police investigations by law, requiring warrant, and other stuff that are the real way you're supposed to be protected from the government. The real problem is that while some western government have rule of law and can be relatively expected to be just, other governments are not, and it's bad setting the precedent of government intervention because many non western governments can't be trusted with it.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  It's not like the government and its numberless agencies care about warrants when it comes to violating people's digital privacy. They just take whatever they want and ask questions later. Cryptography is essentially digital self-defense and is absolutely necessary. If the authorities want data they should have to physically seize the device containing it and hope it's not encrypted.
- rektide 5y ago
  I think you are wrong. > There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. if the government gets to decide whenever it feels like if you have (or had) privacy, you have none. this isn't a case of just vs unjust governments. there is a large extant question of a more fundamental individual right, of whether a human is allowed privacy, or whether their home is expected to be able to tell on them when the man comes & asks it. there are huge massive reactionary negative afraid forces & fearmongers out there who will use any extremist cases they can get their hands upon to shrill-ly cry that we must do something, that we must protect some vulnerable people or defend against some predator. some are sincere. most are shallow, lying, disinformationing propoganda agents, waging a war of opinions to justify the intrusion & disruption they ulteriorly seek. some are honest at least with themselves about this deception, but others simply let themselves be blown into their extremist beliefs, let their fears take them over. privacy is not real when it's decided upon ex post facto, at the convenience of the nation. no matter the nation.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    > fundamental individual right Indeed, this is the classic Locke vs. Rousseau argument of whether rights preexist governments, or are just a function of the "general will". As governments are just aggregations of humans, Rousseau's vaguely super-human view of government seems a pleasant myth when we see the evils of racism repackaged as "Affirmative Action".
    - rektide 5y ago
      you took a general sound basis & used it to project a very specific political qualm. disingenuous lead in & disappointing & sad self serving end. unlike you, I will say this is just my personal belief: affirmative action is good. we should socially work to afford some egaitarianism & equitability amid systems which favor specific classes. we ought be promoting the individual positive & negative liberties of all. adjusting systems of power to share some opportunity ought give a wider range of people a chance to participate. being denied a long held privilege of position that others were not usually afforded is not a deprivation & does not infringe upon the denied person's liberty.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

> By allowing others to look into your home and listen to your conversations, they can verify that no abuse is occurring, and easily collect evidence when it does occur. CPS can do that if they have a warrant.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bronzeage 5y ago

That's a clear strawman. There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. There are also restrictions of police investigations by law, requiring warrant, and other stuff that are the real way you're supposed to be protected from the government. The real problem is that while some western government have rule of law and can be relatively expected to be just, other governments are not, and it's bad setting the precedent of government intervention because many non western governments can't be trusted with it.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
It's not like the government and its numberless agencies care about warrants when it comes to violating people's digital privacy. They just take whatever they want and ask questions later. Cryptography is essentially digital self-defense and is absolutely necessary. If the authorities want data they should have to physically seize the device containing it and hope it's not encrypted.
rektide 5y ago
I think you are wrong. > There's a big difference between no privacy at all, and no privacy only in those cases requiring government investigation. if the government gets to decide whenever it feels like if you have (or had) privacy, you have none. this isn't a case of just vs unjust governments. there is a large extant question of a more fundamental individual right, of whether a human is allowed privacy, or whether their home is expected to be able to tell on them when the man comes & asks it. there are huge massive reactionary negative afraid forces & fearmongers out there who will use any extremist cases they can get their hands upon to shrill-ly cry that we must do something, that we must protect some vulnerable people or defend against some predator. some are sincere. most are shallow, lying, disinformationing propoganda agents, waging a war of opinions to justify the intrusion & disruption they ulteriorly seek. some are honest at least with themselves about this deception, but others simply let themselves be blown into their extremist beliefs, let their fears take them over. privacy is not real when it's decided upon ex post facto, at the convenience of the nation. no matter the nation.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  > fundamental individual right Indeed, this is the classic Locke vs. Rousseau argument of whether rights preexist governments, or are just a function of the "general will". As governments are just aggregations of humans, Rousseau's vaguely super-human view of government seems a pleasant myth when we see the evils of racism repackaged as "Affirmative Action".
  - rektide 5y ago
    you took a general sound basis & used it to project a very specific political qualm. disingenuous lead in & disappointing & sad self serving end. unlike you, I will say this is just my personal belief: affirmative action is good. we should socially work to afford some egaitarianism & equitability amid systems which favor specific classes. we ought be promoting the individual positive & negative liberties of all. adjusting systems of power to share some opportunity ought give a wider range of people a chance to participate. being denied a long held privilege of position that others were not usually afforded is not a deprivation & does not infringe upon the denied person's liberty.